Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):Well, we can actually WATCH the games.

You can tell how much value an outfielder has defensively by watching games on TV?

I can tell you if he's a good or bad fielder(at least on that day). You can't?

Kind of. I can tell for one play, sometimes, if there's a full replay. But that doesn't tell me how good a guy is over an entire season. Just like seeing one home run or one strikeout doesn't tell you if someone is a good hitter.

Say you watch 10-15 games. Can you get a better idea?

I can get a rough idea. But that rough idea is going to be much less reliable than a year of UZR.

Just like seeing 30 or 40 at bats gives you a rough idea on how good someone is offensively, but you'd never take that over a full year of BA, even if you need more than one year's worth of plate appearances (over 900) for BA to normalize.

Is that because you NEED a NUMERIC VALUE to put on the player? I'm going to assume "Yes" and move on to my next question.

What is more "fun" for you, in a baseball-related way of course?

1. Pouring over a pile of stats for 3 hours
2. Watching a game

Cat got your tongue?

Is that a serious question, dipshit? Of course watching games is more fun. We need stats to evaluate players. Which is what we're doing when we argue who the MVP should be or who should be in the Hall of Fame.

Should I assume you like stats more than games next time you talk about Jeter's place on the all time hit list? Or when you use batting average and RBI when arguing that Don Mattingly was the best player in baseball?

Of course it's a serious question. You just implied, and then doubled down on the implication, that we NEED stats to tell us if a player is any good.

Let's move down the ladder a little. I think you said you had a kid. If so, and he plays baseball, do you NEED stats to tell you if he, or his teammates, are any good? Can't you just watch a few games and say "You know, Little Jimmy sort of sucks but Little Billy can play some ball"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):Well, we can actually WATCH the games.

You can tell how much value an outfielder has defensively by watching games on TV?

I can tell you if he's a good or bad fielder(at least on that day). You can't?

Kind of. I can tell for one play, sometimes, if there's a full replay. But that doesn't tell me how good a guy is over an entire season. Just like seeing one home run or one strikeout doesn't tell you if someone is a good hitter.

Say you watch 10-15 games. Can you get a better idea?

I can get a rough idea. But that rough idea is going to be much less reliable than a year of UZR.

Just like seeing 30 or 40 at bats gives you a rough idea on how good someone is offensively, but you'd never take that over a full year of BA, even if you need more than one year's worth of plate appearances (over 900) for BA to normalize.

"I can get a rough idea. But that rough idea is going to be much less reliable than a year of UZR."

Is it? Because if an outfielder is playing no doubles defense against a power hitter, and he hits a ball just short of him, the UZR!!! will think he had a terrible play. And if a ball is hit right at him, it's a great defensive play!!! etc, etc.

I'm sorry, it needs to get better.

Not correct. The data collected by BIS takes into account the positioning of the fielders and the distance they went to the ball.

Are you sure? Or just saying that. Because that's not my understanding. You could be right.

Actually, I don't know if UZR uses it in the calculation. I know BIS collects that data, though.

UZR includes ballpark size, number of outs, handedness of the pitcher, number of base runners and what bases they are on, and the speed and trajectory of the batted ball.

The new generation of stat geeks is just trying to put their imprint on a game that was being played 100 years before they were born. Since the basics of the game haven't changed, they're trying to "quantify" things and assign stats to events that most of us are happier to simply watch and enjoy.

It's entertaining to watch a ball dribble into center field while Jeter flails at it. We don't need to put a number on it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/4/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):The new generation of stat geeks is just trying to put their imprint on a game that was being played 100 years before they were born. Since the basics of the game haven't changed, they're trying to "quantify" things and assign stats to events that most of us are happier to simply watch and enjoy.

It's entertaining to watch a ball dribble into center field while Jeter flails at it. We don't need to put a number on it.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/4/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):The new generation of stat geeks is just trying to put their imprint on a game that was being played 100 years before they were born. Since the basics of the game haven't changed, they're trying to "quantify" things and assign stats to events that most of us are happier to simply watch and enjoy.

It's entertaining to watch a ball dribble into center field while Jeter flails at it. We don't need to put a number on it.

Positioning. Compare where Jeter starts in this gif and where Ryan starts in the other.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):Well, we can actually WATCH the games.

You can tell how much value an outfielder has defensively by watching games on TV?

I can tell you if he's a good or bad fielder(at least on that day). You can't?

Kind of. I can tell for one play, sometimes, if there's a full replay. But that doesn't tell me how good a guy is over an entire season. Just like seeing one home run or one strikeout doesn't tell you if someone is a good hitter.

Say you watch 10-15 games. Can you get a better idea?

I can get a rough idea. But that rough idea is going to be much less reliable than a year of UZR.

Just like seeing 30 or 40 at bats gives you a rough idea on how good someone is offensively, but you'd never take that over a full year of BA, even if you need more than one year's worth of plate appearances (over 900) for BA to normalize.

Is that because you NEED a NUMERIC VALUE to put on the player? I'm going to assume "Yes" and move on to my next question.

What is more "fun" for you, in a baseball-related way of course?

1. Pouring over a pile of stats for 3 hours
2. Watching a game

Cat got your tongue?

Is that a serious question, dipshit? Of course watching games is more fun. We need stats to evaluate players. Which is what we're doing when we argue who the MVP should be or who should be in the Hall of Fame.

Should I assume you like stats more than games next time you talk about Jeter's place on the all time hit list? Or when you use batting average and RBI when arguing that Don Mattingly was the best player in baseball?

Of course it's a serious question. You just implied, and then doubled down on the implication, that we NEED stats to tell us if a player is any good.

Let's move down the ladder a little. I think you said you had a kid. If so, and he plays baseball, do you NEED stats to tell you if he, or his teammates, are any good? Can't you just watch a few games and say "You know, Little Jimmy sort of sucks but Little Billy can play some ball"?

We do need stats.

You and I can obviously see that Jeter is a ******* abortion defensively at short. But how much worse is he than an average shortstop? I don't know. A lot? A little? Is his bat still worth keeping him out there? Or is he costing the Yankees more runs with his glove than an adequate defensive replacement would cost them with the bat?

Those are the kinds of questions that curious baseball fans like to answer. I don't assume I know anything.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

You like WAR, right?

You mentioned that a season of UZR is pretty meaningless, right?

You know UZR is used in WAR, right?

This is what I mean - we're using this stat to make arguments on comparisons of baseball players. If the number sucks, we shouldn't put much stock in it, that's all I'm saying. I'm a BIG numbers guy, a "statnerd" if you will. But if the number doesn't do a good job of quantifying a player's value or worth or whatever, then why do we look at it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

You like WAR, right?

You mentioned that a season of UZR is pretty meaningless, right?

You know UZR is used in WAR, right?

This is what I mean - we're using this stat to make arguments on comparisons of baseball players. If the number sucks, we shouldn't put much stock in it, that's all I'm saying. I'm a BIG numbers guy, a "statnerd" if you will. But if the number doesn't do a good job of quantifying a player's value or worth or whatever, then why do we look at it?

WAR is a quick reference point. I usually break up the hitting, fielding, and base running into three parts.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/4/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):The new generation of stat geeks is just trying to put their imprint on a game that was being played 100 years before they were born. Since the basics of the game haven't changed, they're trying to "quantify" things and assign stats to events that most of us are happier to simply watch and enjoy.

It's entertaining to watch a ball dribble into center field while Jeter flails at it. We don't need to put a number on it.

Positioning. Compare where Jeter starts in this gif and where Ryan starts in the other.

It's fine, I just couldn't help myself posting Jeter slowly go after a ground ball.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.